- 1 -American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Validation of a leak-free C/SiC heat exchangertechnology

Clément BOUQUET – Snecma Propulsion Solide – Le Haillan - FranceAgnès LUC-BOUHALI – ONERA – Palaiseau – France

Brett HAUBER – United States Air Force - AFRL – Dayton, OH – USAJacques THEBAULT – Snecma Propulsion Solide – Le Haillan – France

AbstractIn the continued development of hypersonicpropulsion systems, a French-UScooperation, the AC3P (AdvancedComposite Combustion Chamber Program),funded the development of a C/SiC activelycooled technology as a potential futurereplacement for the current HySET metallicdesign. Several small panels (115x40 mm²)were man ufactured and tested in parallel to amaterial and structural development study.

This paper presents the tests carried toevaluate the leakage of the panel in serviceconditions, the decrease of C/SiC compositematerial permeability with temperature, andthe assessment of a leak-free C/SiC panel inrelevant environment (circulation ofpreheated kerosene in the grooves undersevere radiant heat loading).

IntroductionWithin the frame of the "HyTech" program,P&W was chosen by the USAF inDecember 1997 to develop and ground test aMach 4 - Mach 8 scramjet engine. Thecombustion chamber proposed consists ofactively cooled structures, which enableboth the cooling of the engine and theheating and cracking of the JP7 endothermicfuel.

Design studies previously implemented byP&W and SPS [5] showed that, in order toreach a flight efficient weight balance, ageneralized use of CMC for the enginestructures appeared most appropriate. TheAC3 program, a DGA-USAF fundedcooperation between P&W, USAF, SPS,ONERA and DGA, was defined to develop

and validate a composite heat exchangerdesign which would be compatible of thescramjet engine requirements.

The design chosen consists of SPSSepcarbinox C/ SiC structures, the heatexchange areas bein g built by the use of twoCMC panels : The hot side panel presentsmachined grooves to enable the circulationof fuel as close as possible to thecombustion chamber inner wall, and the"cold" side CMC panel presents integratedmanifolds machined in the cross-direction ofthe grooves. The two panels are then simplybrazed together. A similar C/SiC materialwas previously used in ramjet combustionchamber [1] and Mach 8 composite scramjetinjection pilots [2] applications.

This design is very flexible, permitting tointegrate parietal injection, and permitting toadjust the grooves cross section and route tomeet both fuel heating requirements andlocal thermal constraints. In-plane or angularpanels could then be assembled together orwith uncooled CMC panels to form a fullycomposite and weight efficient compositeengine [3].

The most critical technical challenges raisedconsist in validating :• the manufacturing route (tightening of

the material and brazing of twocomposite panels),

• the ability to withstand service pressureand thermomechanical loads,

• the full tightness to JP7 fuel and to itsgaseous cracked components,

• the thermal efficiency of the heatexchanger.

The tightness of the system appeared as themost critical point, as standard CMC

12th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies15 - 19 December 2003, Norfolk, Virginia

AIAA 2003-6918

Copyright © 2003 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.

- 2 -American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

materials usually present important porosityand matrix cracking. An innovativemanufacturing route has been studied andvalidated to reach the totally leak-freerequirement of the system, and proved itsability to withstand the severe pressure andheat loading of the AFRL tests carried, aspresented here below.

Validation logicPrior to the manufacturing of large heatexchanger panels and to their testing inscramjet facilit ies, it was decided to focus onreduced scale panels (115x40 mm² with 3grooves) and to thermal test them in aradiant facility. This choice is explained bythe following reasons :• Security : the implementation of a fuel-

cooled panel in the UTRC scramjetengine test-bed is possible only if itsleak-free behavior in a neutralatmosphere radiant heating test facilityis first checked.

• Cost reduction and manufacturing timeefficiency : the reduced size enabledSPS to manufacture 15 mini-panels in areduced time-frame, assessing severalenvisaged manufacturing routes andproving the manufacturing repeatabilityof the chosen route.

• Ability to perform long duration, wellcalibrated and instrumented thermalenvironment testing : this is much easierin radiant facilities than in scramjetengine test-beds, and it permits thevalidation of the prediction codes,reaching equilibrium conditions.

• Representative geometry : the localbehavior of the material throughmanufacturing and test operations isrepresentative, as the size and shape ofthe grooves is identical to the genericdesign of the full size scramjet enginepanels. Still, the manufacturing of largerpanels is of course necessary in thefollowing phase.

Figure 1 : mini-panel configuration

A total of fifteen panels were manufactured,four of which (referenced to as A, B, C, D inthe article) were tested in the radiant facilitydescribed below.

General USAF-AFRL RadiantFacility DescriptionThe fuel cooled panel facility was developedseveral years ago in response to the need fora thermal/structural test facility capable oftesting large actively cooled scramjet panels.The facility was designed to recreate theflowpath thermal environment, includingaero-thermal heating and coolant conditions(pressure, flowrate, and temperature) and itis capable of maintaining these conditionson large panels for durations of 10 minutesor longer. To date, three panelconfigurations have been tested includingtwo large metallic panels and the SP S C-SiCmini-panels (Figure 2).

- 3 -American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 2. Subelement Test

The facility as configured for this testincluded the primary systems needed toproduce heat flux, deliver conditionedcoolant, and measure test article, facility andcoolant thermal and mechanical conditions.It also included modifications necessary topre-heat the JP7 coolant to 755 K (900°F)and measure test article (nitrogen or fuel)permeability at room and elevatedtemperature. The three primary systems ofthe facility include the quartz lamp radiantsystem comprised of one or more pyro-metric modules (Figure 3), the coolantdelivery and recovery system, and the dataand control system.

Figure 3. Pyro-metric Assembly

Figure 4. 6000W Quartz Lamp

Pyro-metric System

To achieve high heat flux loads, the heatingsystem currently uses pyro-metric lampmodules (Figure 3), each containing up to 5- 6000 W quartz lamps (Figure 4), togenerate a radiant heat flux field with levelsreaching 1.4 MW/m² (120 BTU/ft2-sec) forshort periods or 1.21 MW/m² (105 BTU/ft2-sec) for longer periods. To achieve heatingover large areas, an array of modules can beassembled to accommodate virtually anysize or shaped structure. Tests of specimensas small as the mini-panels to entire aircrafthave been conducted at elevatedtemperatures using these modules. For themini-panel tests, three pyro-metric moduleswere assem bled as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Pyrometric Array

Coolant System

The coolant supply and recovery system wasdesigned to accommodate tests of largepanels for up to 10 minutes and can supplyconditioned nitrogen or JP7 coolant. Thecoolant system includes a number of majorcomponents including: 1) A high-pressurefuel supply tank capable of supplying 38liters (10 gallons) of fuel at 6.9 MPa (1000psi). 2) A tube trailer capable of supplyingnitrogen or helium gas at 17.2 MPa (2500

- 4 -American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

psi). 3) Liquid and gas flo w meters. 4) Flowcontrol valve. 5) Parallel flow, water-cooledheat exchanger. 6) Fuel recovery and ventsystem.

For this test two additional features wereadded to this system. The first was a fuelpreheater capable of preheating fuel to 810K (1000°F). This system was used in thefinal thermal performance tests. The secondwas a small (150 ml) secondary fuel supplytank, essentially a control volume, used inconjunction with a precision scale tomeasure JP7 permeability at room andelevated temperature.

Data and Control

The data system in the facility providesstandard temperature and pressuremeasurements throughout the coolantsystem and of the test article. Four rearsurface temperatures were measuredthroughout the test series using springloaded probes (Figure 6). Coolant inlet andoutlet temperatures were also measured withimmersion sensors located just upstream anddo wnstream of the test article. In later tests,these probes were actually inserted into thebody of the specimen at the inlet and outletends of the specimen to minimize heat losseffects in the data.

Figure 6. Specimen Instrumentation

In addition to standard flowrates to measurecoolant mass flowrate during thermal testsor leakage during leak tests, a special systemwas installed that could measure the mass ofJP7 lost during elevated temperature tests.This system employed a 150 ml supplybottle and a precision balance with 0.01gmresolution. During a JP7 leak rate test, thefacility could be configured to isolate thetest article and supply bottle. In this

configuration, the only flowpath available tothe coolant was through the surface of thespecimen and the only of fuel available tomakeup the loss from the supply bottle. Bymeasurin g in real t ime the change of mass ofthe supply bottle, a direct measurement ofthe leak rate of the specimen could beachieved at any specimen temperature.

Control within the facility is achieved in allcases by computer. For these tests, threeperformance aspects of the facility werecontrolled, heat flux, coolant preheat andcoolant flowrate. Due to the variability ofcoolant behavior, particularly the JP7coolant, flowrate control required an activesystem using an actuated metering valvedo wnstream of the test article.

Test Operation

Two basic tests, permeability and thermalperformance, were conducted on fourdifferent panels. The different testconfigurations are summarized here below :• Test configuration 1 : N2 leakage test

with heat flux (carried on panel A)• Test configuration 2 : N2 flowing test

(carried on panel A)• Test configuration 3 : RT JP7 leakage

test (carried on panels A, B, C & D)• Test configuration 4 : JP7 leakage test

with heat flux (carried on panels A & B)• Test configuration 5 : JP7 flowing test

(carried on panels C & D)

To measure nitrogen permeability (testconfiguration 1 on mini-panel A) the outletof the specimen was sealed and thespecimen pressurized to the desiredpressure. Upstream of the specimen aprecision flowmeter measured the flow ofgas into the article measuring leakagedirectly. Tests were run in this setup fromroom to elevated temperature and resultswere correlated with test article temperature.

Fuel permeability was measured using twomethods. The first, used only for roomtemperature tests (test configuration 3), wasperformed by filling the test article and asmall supply bottle with fuel, pressurizing

T/C 1T/C 4

T/C 2

T/C 3

Inlet Outlet

- 5 -American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

this assembly and collecting and measuringthe volume of liquid that flowed through thespecimen over an extend period of time. Thesecond method, used for both room andelevated temperature tests (test configuration4) employed the secondary supply tank andscale described above. In these test, theprimary fuel supply system and test articlewere closed at the outlet of the test article,bleed of all trapped gas and filled with JP7.At this point, several valves were set toisolate the secondary fuel tank and testarticle, thus trapping a measured mass offuel in this system. By constantly measuringchanges in the mass of the secondary fueltank, real-time measurement of fuel leak ratecould be measured at room temperature andas test article temperature was increased.

Figure 7. Thermal Performance Test Profile(flowing JP7 test, config 5)

Thermal performance tests, testconfigurations 2 and 5, were conducted withroom temperature nitrogen and preheatedJP7. Normal test operation proceeded byfirst establishing the desired coolantpressure and flowrate, followed by coolantpreheating if needed and finally byapplication of heat to the surface of the testarticle (Figure 7). Throughout a testautomatic and manual holds were placedupon heat flux to allow steady state thermalconditions to be achieved. Tests concluded

with a slow ramp down of heat flux afterwhich coolant continued to flow until testarticle temperatures reached roomtemperature, at which time the test wasstopped.

Thermal analysis codesTwo codes (MOSAR at ONERA andMARC at SP S) were used in parallel tocompute the heating of both the coolant andthe mini-panels in test conditions.

MOSAR code

The MOSAR co de has been developed byONERA in order to simulate the heatexchanges bet ween a cooling fluid an d a testarticle submitted to heating (by convectionor by radiative lamps) : using a thermalnetwork and nodal approach, both structureand cooling fluid are simulated during theunsteady heating, using non constantthermal properties and variable (in space andtime) boundary conditions. The variations ofthe fluid properties with temperature andpressure are also simulated. Structure andfluid are strongly coupled ; the experimentalDittus & Boelter correlation is used in orderto simulate the heat exchange between thegroove walls and the fluid. In order to takeinto account the great temperaturedifferences, film and bulk temperature areused. This approach has been validated bycomparison with published experimentalresults [4] .

Only the central part of the panel issimulated : we do not take into accounteffect of trapezoidal shape or lateral heatlosses into the support because they are notof great importance in case of active cooling(cf. Table 3).

- 6 -American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 8 : MOSAR Finite elemen t mod el

MARC code

This code was used by SPS to predict thetemperature into the CMC material. Itallowed to take into account the particularshape of the mini-panel and the lateralconductive thermal losses. Limit conditionsinclude incident heat flux, convection in thegrooves (MOSAR output), radiation, andconductive lateral heat losses.

Thermal analysis validation

Cold N 2 flowing test (test configuration 2)intended to reproduce the thermomechanicalloads of the system using nitrogen instead ofJP7. It allowed to validate the assembly inrepresentative mechanical loading (pressure+ thermal gradient) and to assess after thetest the residual t ightness of the mini-panel(to check there was no damage). Theelectrical power was raised as high as 50kW, corresponding to an incident heat fluxof 550 kW/m2.The mini-panel resisted a 23minutes test in this severe thermomechanicalconditions. The T/Cs on the back face areclose together. The Nitrogen exittemperature was measured, its entrancetemperature is constant and equal to 300 K(RT).

MOSAR has been used in order to simulatesome points of interest at the end of thepower plateau. For rebuilding, only theincoming heat flux density and the nitrogenmass flow rate are needed : the N 2 outputtemperature and the coupon temperatures arecomputed. The comparison of experimentaldata and MOSAR results shows that the

agreement is good for Nitrogen and backface (see Table 1).

Electricalpower(kW)

Tcoldmeasured

(K)

TcoldMOSAR

(K)

Toutmeasured

(K)

ToutMOSAR

(K)

30 461

475

443-488 403 378

42 523

537

501-564 441 412

Table 1 : MOSAR output results & T/Cmeasurements of nitrogen flowing test

For MARC analysis, heat exchange factorscomputed with MOSAR were implemented.Though an isolating felt was crushed in-between the part and the support tool,thermal conduction on sides was taken intoaccount : a thermal resistance was added onthe sides to meet the measured temperaturesof mini-panel A in test configuration 1(static nitrogen test). That is to say this valuewas indirectly measured during the first testcarried on mini-panel A. The sameresistance was later applied for the testpredictions of test configurations 2, 4 and 5.The agreement of the predictions (<10%error between prediction and temperaturemeasurements) is good, and validates thethermal repartition predicted, as shown inTable 2.

Testtype

Panel IncidHeat flux

Tback Tbackmeas.

- - MW/m² K KStaticN2

A 0.31 700 774648

FlowN2

A 0.43 503 506516

FlowN2

A 0.55 539 572577

FlowJP7

D 0.73 806 775796

FlowJP7

D 1.05 840 825843

FlowJP7

D 1.21 857 849872

Table 2 : MARC thermal predictions andcomparison with measured values

- 7 -American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 9 : Thermal prediction of panel D at1.21 MW/m² incident heat flux condition

The lateral thermal losses are important inthe static tests carried to measure leak rate athigh temperature (as heat is only evacuatedby conduction through the crushed felt andby radiation in this test configuration). Still,they are much more negligible in theflowin g tests (test configurations 2 & 5), asshown in Table 3, where lateral thermallosses are either taken into account or not.

Test type Incid Heatflux

Laterallosses

Tback

computedRatio

- MW/m² K %Static N2 0.31 YES 700Static N2 0.31 NO 1123 1.60Flow JP7 1.21 YES 857Flow JP7. 1.21 NO 930 1.09

Table 3 : Influence of crushed-feltconductivity on thermal behavior

Other calculations were also made, differentfrom the experimental ones, as we can see inFigure 10.

Figure 10 : Experimental & computed results(MOS AR & MARC codes)

Concerning the experimental data, onlypoints where steady state is reached arepresented versus electric power. We can see

that a global agreement is found for MARCand MOSAR:• the nitrogen exit temperature calculated

by MOSAR is a little lower than theexperimental data

• for the back face, the experimentalgeneral tendency is observed by thecalculated temperatures : MARC andMOSAR are consistent

• the hot face data are not taken intoaccount

This analysis allowed to identify the thermalload applied to the parts (up to 1.21 MW/m²incident heat flux and temperaturerepartition) and to validate the thermalcodes. The load is still not enough to fullyvalidate the panel in scramjet serviceconditions, as the test bed did not permit toreach higher heat fluxes. Further testing areplanned to validate the behavior at higherheat loads.

Leakage tests results

Mini-panels A & B

These mini-panels were manufactured withthe first tightening technique envisaged.Mini-panel A was tested to assess thenitrogen and JP7 leak rate from RT to hightemperature. Mini-panel B JP7 leak rate wasmeasured to compare to its known Heliumleak rate at 0.1 MPa (14.5 psi), and thus tohelp compare the following mini-panelsmanufactured with simple Helium leak ratemeasurements (which could be directlyperformed in France at SPS). Mini-panel Balso permitted to assert the dispersion of theleak-rate level due to the manufacturingprocess.

The interest of assessing leak rate at hightemperature is based on the fact that theviscosity of JP7 and nitrogen drasticallychanges with temperature, and that thepermeability of C/SiC materials is in themeantime reduced (due to the lower CTEvalue of the carbon fibers compared to theSiC matrix : the crack size reduction intemperature lowers the materialpermeability).

TEST#3 Flowing N2

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Electrical Power (kW)

T (K

)

T/C4

T/C5

T/C6

T/C7

Tout

simulation made with MOSAR(rectangular symmetric element without lateral heat losses)

simulation made with MARC(half mini-panel with and without lateral heat losses)

- 8 -American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

For both nitrogen and JP7 fluids, it wassupposed that the Darcy law was applicable.Then, in an homogeneous porous material,the speed of the fluid is linked to thepressure gradient and to the permeability Kof the material :

( ) ( )PgradfluidTTKV

),(µ−=

In this case, at a given service pressure,mass flow rate is fully determined byviscosity of the fluid and permeability of thematerial evolutions with fluid nature andtemperature. It can be written :

( )( )

( )( )

( )( )2,

1,1,2,

2

1

1

2

1

2

fluidTfluidT

TKTK

fluidTmfluidTm

ν

ν×=

&

&

This law enables with one leak ratemeasurement at a given temperature topredict the leak rate with a different fluid ata different temperature.

As performing JP7 hot leak rate tests wasnot possible for test set-up concerns at thebeginning of the program, nitrogen leak ratetests were carried on mini-panel A to assessK(T) of the material and thus predict JP7 hotservice leak rate. Test configuration 1 wasused, the cold-side and fuel temperaturemeasurements enabled to draw atemperature to leak rate curve representativeof the mini-panel and of the material (Figure11).

Figure 11 : Hot N2 leak rate test on panel A

A factor 14 of leak rate reduction is foundbetween RT and 770 K cold sidetemperature. Taking into account nitrogen

viscosity evolution, the K(T) law is foun d(factor 3 reduction from RT to 770 K) asshown in Figure 12:

Figure 12 : Permeability evolution of panel A

This test allowed to predict the JP7 leak rateevolution with temperature, and later tocompare it with the JP7 high temperatureleak rate measurements carried in the testconfiguration 4 (Figure 13):

Figure 13 : Hot JP7 panel A leak rateprediction and test

With Darcy law, RT JP7 leak rate waspredicted with good accuracy (11% errorcompared to measurement). 600 K JP7 leakrate prediction was 50% too high (ratio 3.7predicted, ratio 2.55 measured – cf. Figure13), but the order of magnitude is accurate.Moreover, the prediction tends to prove themaximum material leak rate was measuredduring JP7 hot leak rate tests (due to anincrease of JP7 viscosity at highertemperatures).

Maximum hot measured leak rate of mini-panel A corresponds to roughly 1.3% of thefuel mass flow of the engine for 3 grooves.No deterioration of the RT leak rate wasnoted after performance of both the hot leak

- 9 -American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

rate measurement and the flowing andpressurized N 2 actively cooled test (designservice pressure – N 2 mass flow defined tohave similar thermal gradient than fuelpredictions – 0.55 MW/m² incident heatflux). The part was considered as notdamaged.

Mini-panel C

This mini-panel was manufactured with asecond tightening technique. It was notpossible to perform hot measurements of theleak rate, as the levels were too low todifferentiate leaks coming from the test set-up and leaks coming from the part itself. Theonly data that could be measured were thenitrogen and JP7 leak rate at RT and servicepressure. RT leak rate corresponds toroughly 0.03% of the fuel mass flow of theengine for 3 grooves. No deterioration of theRT leak rate was noted after performance ofthe flowing and pressurized JP7 activelycooled test (design service pressure and fuelmass flow, fuel preheated to 700 K - 1.21MW/m² incident heat flux). The part wasconsidered as not damaged.

Mini-panel D

This mini-panel was manufactured with athird tightening technique. Helium, nitrogenand JP7 leak rate measurements showed nodetectable leak before and after performanceof the hot flowing and pressurized JP7actively cooled test (design service pressureand fuel mass flo w - fuel preheated to 750 K- 1.21 MW/m² incident heat flux). The partwas considered as not damaged andcompletely leak free after performance ofthe test.

Flowing tests resultsThe hot flowing tests used either nitrogencoolant up to 0.55 MW/m² incident heat flux(for panel A, configuration 2) or JP7 coolantup to 1.21 MW/m² incident heat flux (forpanels C and D, configuration 5). The testsallowed to assess the heat exchangerefficiency at different incident heat fluxes, to

reach stationary conditions, and to validatethe thermal codes.

Figure 14 : Mini-panel D dismounted justafter JP7 flowing test (test configuration 5)

During the flowing test with the panel D, thefuel inlet temperature reached 750 K (700 Kfor panel C). It was well stabilised during allthe power steps, including at end of the 30kW step (t = 1400-2300 s). A test rebuildingwas made using MOSAR code :computation of the outlet temperature wasmade using the experimental inlettemperature and the applied heat flux. Thepoints of interest were chosen at the end ofthe power plateau, where the steady state isassumed to be reached.

A good agreement between experiment andcomputation is obtained ( Figure 15).

Figure 15 : Fuel heating through panel D

The data analysis shows that the backtemperatures are well stabilised, especiallyat the maximum power step (80 kW).Maximum temperature is observed close tothe outlet (T/C1), minimum temperatureclose to the inlet (T/C4), T/C2 and T/C3give intermediate and similar results.

Concerning the test rebuilding we canconclude that the calculated back face

- 10 -American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

temperatures are close to the experimentalones.

The values obtained with the JP7 model arevery consistent with the highest measuredvalues.

Figure 16 : comparison of T/C measurementsand MOSAR predictions for panel D JP7

flowing test

Both mini-panels showed no damage aftertesting, (mini-panel D remains tight andmini-panel C shows the same leak rate asbefore test).

ConclusionThis phase of the program permitted todown-select a manufacturing technologywhich allows to envisage the use ofthermostructural composites for light, leak-free, high temperature heat exchangers.

15 mini-panels (115x40 mm² heat exchangerpanels with three grooves) weremanufactured to assess and develop thedifferent routes envisaged. The down-selected leak-free route was successfullytested with circulating fuel at servicepressure and up to 1.21 MW/m² incidentheat flux. Besides, 3 additional leak-freemini-panels were manufactured, and thusconfirmed the repeatability of the process.

The next phases of the program will no wfocus on scaling-up the technology, onassem blin g heat-exchangers together to forma test-able scramjet combustion chamber (cf.Figure 17), and on testing the availablemini-panels at higher heat fluxes.

Figure 17 : Scramjet ground test-bedcombustion chamber design

Abbreviations

CalculusK permeability of the material (m2)P pressure of the fluid (Pa)T temperature (K)µ viscosity of the fluid (kg/m/s)ρ volumetric mass (kg/m 3)ν = ρµ : cinematic viscosity (m2/s)m& mass flow rate (kg/ m 2)

TextAC3 Advanced Composite

Combustion Chamber

AFRL Air Force Research Laboratory

C/ SiC Carbon fibres and siliconcarbide composite material

CMC Ceramic Matrix Composite

CTE Coefficient of thermal expansion

DGA Direction Générale del'Armement

MOSAR Specific code for actively cooled

250

350

450

550

650

750

850

950

500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100 3300 3500t (s)

T (K

)

TC 1

TC 2

TC 3

TC 4

mi n Tb a ck c om p ut e d

max Tback computed

T/C 4T/C 1

T/C 3

T/C 2

Outlet Inlet

Lamps Stop

Preheater Stop

- 11 -American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

structures (MOdelisation deStructures ActivementRefroidies)

ONERA Office national d'études et derecherches aérospatiales

P&W Pratt & Whitney

RT Room temperature

SPS Snecma Propulsion Solide

T/C Thermocouple

USAF United States Air Force

UTRC United Technologies ResearchCenter

References[1] : Application des matériauxthermostructuraux aux chambres decombustion pour statoréacteurs – D. CRAPIZ– SEP AGARD – 79 th Symposium of theenergetics panel on airbreathing propulsionfor missiles and projectiles. May 11-15, 1992

[2] : Towards an all composite SCRAMJETcombustor – G.UHRIG & J-M. LARRIEU - SAIAA 2002-3883

[3] : Composite technologies developmentstatus for Scramjet applications – G. UHRIG,C. BOUQUET, JM LARRIEU, R. FISCHER –12th AIAA Space Planes and HypersonicSystems and Technologies Conference,Norfolk, Virginia. December 15-19, 2003.

[4] : Modélisation thermique d'une structurechaude refroidie" - A.LUC-BOUHALI - SFT99 (Société Française des Thermiciens)Congrès Français de Thermique, Arcachon(France) May 17-19, 1999 - ONE RA TP-1999-52

[5] : Direct fuel composite structure – D.MEDWICK, J. CASTRO ( Pratt & Whitney), D.SOBEL (UTRC), G. BOYET (ONERA), JPVIDAL (Snecma), AIAA SL-233/USA-54

[6] : An innovative thermal managementsystem for a Mach 4 to Mach 8 hypersonicscramjet engine – F. CHEN, W. TAM, N.

SHIMP (Aerojet), R. NORRIS (AFRL) – 34th

AIAA Joint propulsion Conference andexhibit, Cleveland, Ohio. July 13-15, 1998.AIAA 98-3734